I have not read the decision of the lower court in the reporter case and there was no Supreme Court opinion since they just denied cert.
Basically, as I understand it, and I could be wrong since I have not read it in detail, when there is evidence that the information in the possession of the reporter could have only gotten there by someone committing a crime, there is no shield to the investigation into the crime that must have been committed by the disclosure to the reporter. The same is true when the reporter is a witness to a crime.
The government interest in preventing and punishing crime is said to outweigh the interests of the reporter in a free press.
Of course, any time a court starts with balancing crap, it is usually just a gloss for reaching a particular result in conformity with the judges' views on what is reasonable under the circumstances.
All I have time for right now.
Troy
Those who shoot from the hip usually end up just shooting themselves.
Plan the grub and grub the plan.
Where is the party tonight? Who is bringng the drinks?
